The charge was first introduced as a result of the 1992 local government finance act, hastily brought in to replace the much-hated poll tax of 1990.
In fact, so loathed was the poll tax, or ‘Community Charge’ as it was officially known, that it led to widespread riots, mass non-payments, and ultimately brought down Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher after eleven years leading the United Kingdom.
So you can understand why no leader has wanted to touch the policy again in over thirty years. Until now.
The primary issue many had with Thatcher’s community charge was that it changed the way in which local authorities billed their residents. The old rate system used to send a bill per household, much like now.
The poll tax was charged per person. So it meant that every single eligible, over eighteen-year-old got a bill. And people really didn’t like it.
But although the poll tax was hated by many, it cannot be denied that it was a far fairer system than the one we have now.
And with council finances more strapped than ever, and as the debate on what could replace council tax increases, especially from those jockeying to lead the Labour party, I believe it’s time to seriously consider resurrecting the poll tax.
Just because a policy is unpopular, it doesn't make it unfair. Sometimes unpopular decisions based on logic need to be made. And this is one of those occasions, as frankly, councils need the money.
Of course, hard-working taxpayers would be right to be furious at the many councils which waste their money on novelty Net Zero schemes, ridiculously high salaries for their staff, and financial mismanagement which sees some of the UK’s biggest local authorities in huge levels of debt.
However, solving those problems within those bankrupt local authorities, many of which are Labour, would involve making them display just a modicum of frugality with the taxpayers' money they seem to take for granted.
There’s zero chance the Government will ask some of the worst-performing councils to be more efficient, and think more carefully about how they spend, so reforming council tax to try to squeeze even more money out of households seems to be on the political agenda.
But, keen to learn the lessons from the fall of the Thatcher government, many of the potential ideas being put forward are less about fairness, and more about the envy taxes we’re so used to getting from leaders who falsely promised not to put taxes up on ‘working people’.
Make no mistake, it might be dressed up as council tax, but Labour want to come for the wealth in your property.
For instance, Andy Burnham, if successful in becoming Labour leader, wants some sort of “land tax” to replace the council tax. Last year, he spoke of ‘revaluing’ council tax, to make more expensive homes pay even more than they do now.
The Left be damned - it's high time we resurrected the controversial poll tax | Getty Images
Angela Rayner has mooted a ‘progressive’ council tax system where higher value properties in the South of England pay proportionately more in order to fund poorer councils in the North.
Meanwhile, Wes Streeting has pledged to align capital gains tax with income tax; whilst not a specific council tax reform, he is targeting landlords with this measure as a way of squeezing more tax revenue out of those who profit from property.
Ed Miliband is an advocate of Chancellor Rachel Reeves much-derided property wealth tax on homes worth over £2million, which will be an add-on to council tax, and is coming in April 2028. I wrote about the disastrous effect this policy is already having on the property market and tax receipts here.
And just last week, the Centre for London think tank joined the debate by suggesting scrapping both council tax and stamp duty and replacing them with some sort of property wealth tax.
But none of these property taxes solves the fundamental issue which the poll tax sought to solve; there is absolutely no link to the home in which you live, and the local taxes that you pay, and nor should there be.
At present, your council tax is calculated via the ‘band’ in which your property sits. The higher the band, which is calculated by the value of your property, the more expensive your council tax bill.
This is such an incredibly lazy way of presuming people are more wealthy. A bigger home doesn’t necessarily mean more income. And it doesn’t solve the fundamental problem; there is barely any correlation between the bill you receive and the number of people who live in the household.
Where I live, across the road is a shared house of five adults. That’s five people producing rubbish and recycling, and using council services like street lighting, parks and pavements. Their bill is identical to the bill received by me and my partner, a two-person household.
How is this possibly fair?
The bill is obviously calculated because both the physical properties we live in are considered to be of the same size and value. But what does this have to do with the local services we use?
This is why the poll tax was fair. The bill was per person, not per property. If you lived alone, you got one bill. If it were a house of five adults, they got five bills. I struggle to understand how anyone could possibly see this as unfair.
One of the criticisms of the poll tax was that it would mean that someone on a low income would end up with the same bill as someone on a higher income.
So what?
Sorry if this seems harsh, but someone on a higher income already pays much more tax. That’s covered by income tax. And one can understand why, as that is a tax based on income. Hence the name, income tax.
What has your income got to do with the council services which are provided?
And if it is about income, then the size or type of property is not an accurate marker either.
A widow who lives alone on a very modest income could reside in a property which is large enough to incur a big council tax bill. Meanwhile, a young professional up the road could be on a six-figure income, but chooses to live in a one-bedroom flat. So if the argument against a poll tax is about fairness, how is the system fair on that single widow?
If we are going to make council tax about income, then why not go the whole way, abolish council tax altogether and just fund councils solely out of income tax? That makes much more sense than tying the amount you pay for your council for services to the type of home in which you live, irrespective of the number of people who actually live in it.
There’s another really good argument in favour of the poll tax, too: a sense of community. One of the reasons the ‘official’ name of the poll tax was the ‘Community Charge’ was because it was about every single person who received a bill (which was produced via the electoral roll, hence the name ‘poll tax’), pays to have a stake in their community.
And this is sound logic. If each person pays, each person cares. Maybe many people would think twice about fly tipping, would recycle more, would take more pride in their neighbourhoods if they all had a stake in them, by paying. Every over-18-year-old uses council services in some form or other, so everyone should pay.
It would also give residents more of a stake in making sure their council uses the money they receive more wisely and perhaps vote accordingly.
Of course, the likelihood of the poll tax returning is probably nil, as it’ll be far easier for those in charge of the UK to stick to their modus operandi of bringing in more envy taxes which penalise those who do well, and have a more expensive home, than what’s fair.
Throw in social media and the screaming hysterics of those who believe anyone with any kind of ‘wealth’ is evil and needs to have that achievement penalised, and we find ourselves in the perfect storm of Labour having us all pay more into a fundamentally flawed system.
So, on balance, if taxes are a necessary evil, fairness should be prioritised. Or, to misquote Winston Churchill, a poll tax is the worst form of tax, except for all the others.